Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully enumerates the aggregate metrics returned, but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or how the 'state or province' scope is actually determined, which is a behavioral gap given the schema has no state field.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly written sentences: the first front-loads the resource and returned metrics, the second handles routing. No filler, no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The presence of an output schema means return values need not be re-explained (and the description adds them anyway), and the single parameter is well covered by the schema. But the unaddressed state/province scoping mismatch means an agent cannot confidently determine what to pass to target a given state.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and period is documented ('Aggregation window, default 90'), so baseline would be 3. However, the description repeatedly claims results are 'for a state or province' while the schema exposes only a period parameter, implying a scope parameter that does not exist and leaving the agent unable to tell how to select a state.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') plus a rich, precise resource: aggregate report counts, losses, per-capita rates, year-over-year change, and top scam types for a state/province. This is clearly distinguishable from the individual-report and single-report siblings named in the same description.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent by naming the alternatives and their conditions: use bbb_scamtracker_search for individual reports or bbb_scamtracker_detail for one report. This leaves no inference required about when to pick this aggregate tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.